Monday, June 19, 2000

Rhubarb Patch -- abstinence-only sex education

Is sex before
marriage always wrong? Is it a bad idea to tell young people that, if they
choose to have sex, they should take precautions?

Yes and yes,
say those in the abstinence-only movement. Their supporters challenged me
recently after I suggested that a better name for Reality Check 2000, a
"say no to sex" rally for 9,000 schoolchildren held in April, 2000 at the
UIC Pavilion, would have been "Morality Check 2000," and that a
message of fear and shame was not the best way to encourage sexual
responsibility.

To help move
the conversation forward, Melissa Merrill, a spokeswoman for the National
Abstinence Clearinghouse (abstinence.net) in Sioux Falls, S.D., has agreed to
join me in the Rhubarb Patch, a Web site for e-mail discussions that begin here
then continue for several more rounds on the Tribune's Web site. She goes
first.

To Eric Zorn:

Since the
"free love" revolution, when individuals backed away from the
abstinence-until-marriage standard, enormous problems surfaced that society is
now endlessly struggling to resolve. Chanting: "Have sex. Just use this
pill, potion or condom. It's safe," young people freely experimented.

The end result
of this "safe sex" philosophy is our current decay. We are seeing
emerging problems in family structure, fatherlessness, an increased number of
unwed pregnancies, increased abortions and a tragic dramatic rise in sexually
transmitted diseases, some of which are fatal.

Before
entering college, I had a standard physical. As the doctor noted my age, he
began inquiring about my life. I explained that I had been dating my boyfriend
for two years but that we had made a commitment to true love by throwing aside
harmful instant gratification and rightfully choosing to develop character,
integrity and genuine care for each other by waiting for sexual activity until
marriage.

He immediately
responded with words that broke my heart: "That's best. But if you do
choose to have sex, be sure to use a latex condom to prevent pregnancy and
STDs." Astonishingly, he was willing to give me advice that would not only
put me in physical and emotional danger, but also foster the problem that
"safe sex" has created!

Society's
current situation is the fault of those advocating "safe sex," a
message that has consistently failed youths. While individuals believe they
know more about sex than ever before, they in fact are being denied truthful
information. If this generation was fed the truth instead of lies, everyone in
it would choose to wait for marriage. Sadly, society has failed them.

To
Melissa Merrill:

I don't share
your gloomy view of society in decay, nor do I believe that an unmarried person
is necessarily lacking in character, integrity or caring because he has sex.

The
abstinence-only movement's focus--to the point of obsession--on the real and
imagined dangers of premarital sex strikes me as alarmist and disingenuous, a
handy cover for what is, in fact, a moral position that for unmarried people to
have sex is capital-W wrong.

I'm sure
you would concede that this is not a majority view today, that roughly 85
percent of people are not virgins on their wedding day. This doesn't make it
right, of course, but I'd suggest to you the reason 17 out of 20 people reject
your absolutist approach is that, in certain situations, such intimacy seems
right and feels appropriate.

Having said
that, though, I would agree sexual frivolity is generally ill-advised and
results in many problems. And I'd agree that abstinence,self-restraint and caution deserve a
respected, prominent place in our education system and our culture.

To the extent
that organizations in the National Abstinence Clearinghouse lend support to
anyone who chooses or is inclined to choose abstinence, I'm with them. But
where they try to scare kids instead of encourage them and where they tell them
that abstinence is the only rational choice an unmarried person can make, I
part company.

Your doctor
said just the right thing, in my mind. As we take this conversation to the
Internet, let me ask, what would you have wanted him to say? What does
"sexual activity" include? And what truths would you like to impart
to this generation?

To Eric Zorn:

Perhaps you don't
share in my gloomy view of society in decay, but your generation has provided
directionless information to young adults. Adults are saying "youth can't
wait, do whatever you want," setting no standard, thus causing heartbreak
to the upcoming generation. Believe me, I know. I am one of those young adults.

You may not feel
the decay, but it is written all over my generation. My peers fear getting
married because we have seen marriages fall apart faster than a cheap pair of
shoes. So many adults before us couldn't figure out healthy relationships
before the "I do's."

My peers struggle
with trusting others because they have been raised in homes filled with pain or
not knowing a parent. My peers are shooting others on the school ground, being
molested, and 25% of girls my age are raped. My peers are finding out they are
infertile and/or dying because of something we were told was "safe."

Some of my peers
do not understand right and wrong. Our elders failed to provide us with a
compass because they didn't want to make anyone feel "bad."
Unfortunately, this tolerance has provided nothing but increased pain. We want
standards to be raised, and we longingly wish for you "adults" to
quit failing us and start providing us with healthy direction. My generation is
scared because the decay in our society is a self-evident reality.

The charge that
the abstinence-until-marriage movement is alarmist has been raised often. This
is a weak attempt by the opposition to avert the power of the reality that the
abstinence until marriage message delivers.

Anti-drug,
alcohol, and gun-use campaigns abound in our schools and they are applauded as
necessary for the future of our youth. While each of these behaviors has their
dangers, most of the people involved do not have an end appointment with death.
However, the dangers of the behavior are real and, therefore, the warnings are
worthy and necessary. Misdirected sexual behavior is no different. People do
suffer and die from consequences of premarital sex.

While this may
come as a shock since you feel the abstinence-until-marriage message focuses on
the "imagined dangers of pre-marital sex," allow me to provide some
information.

Currently, the
Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is the number one sexually transmitted disease in
our country. HPV is a viral infection often with no immediate symptoms. If
symptoms exist, the infected individual will experience recurring warts on the
genitals, anus, cervix and throat.

The disease has
"safe sex" providers in a tailspin because there is no protection.
HPV is a skin-to-skin contact disease and once you have this lovely disease,
it's for life. Even more, many individuals will not notice symptoms, yet is a
gift that keeps on giving. This possible death sentence can pass on symptoms or
be symptom free.

Once an
individual has HPV, their future is questionable. Individuals are making
routine trips to the doctor to have the ugly warts lasered off their body.
Since it has been linked to as many as 99.7% instances of cervical cancer,
woman as young as teenagers are undergoing radical hysterectomies leaving them
with no chance of having children in the future.

If it is not
caught in time, a young woman with HPV may be one of the 5,000 American women
that die of cervical cancer each year. Would you call cervical cancer and
impending death an imagined problem?

Thankfully, Rep.
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma recognized the National Cancer Institute's statement
that condoms are "ineffective" in stopping the spread of HPV. Now,
just as there are warning labels on snow blowers, cleaning supplies, and
children's toys, so too will there be on condoms, providing the bill passes the
Senate. Earlier in May, the bill passed the House of Representatives 421-1. The
labels will warn that condoms do not prevent the transmission of HPV.

While the
opposition would argue that this is instilling fear, this is an objective
reality. Young people deserve to know that engaging in premarital sex can have
very serious consequences. Just as supporters of comprehensive sex education
have been saying for years, we do want our young people to be informed. We
don't want them to be ignorant. Interestingly, the "safe sex"
movement has realized this fatal flaw in their message and has once again
changed their terminology to compensate.

Webster defines
safe as, "free from damage, danger, or injury; secure, involving no risk,
trustworthy." It is obvious that the definition does not accurately
describe "safe sex" since 20% of the American population is currently
infected with an incurable sexually transmitted disease and people are dying.
Therefore, they have changed their term from "safe sex" to "risk
reduction." While we know that even this is not always true, the
opposition has finally recognized that the term "safe" does not
apply.

Recent statistics
show that over half of high school students are virgins, and everybody desires
a healthy relationship. No one wants failure. Furthermore, the statistic that
85% of people are not virgins when they marry does not mean that they are happy
about it. A majority vote does not confer "rightness." If everyone
jumped off the cliff would that make it the right thing to do?

Certainly the
consequences remain and hurt just as bad. In fact, just before finishing
school, a young man who has now found the woman he wants to marry confronted me
with the enormous pain he feels because he can no longer give his virginity
away to his wife. Every time he closes his eyes he is revisited by images of
the past. Do you think he would claim himself proud to be part of that 85%? Obviously
not, and that is why secondary virginity, or the commitment to wait until
before having sex again, is sweeping across the country.

Our society
continues to place the highest approval of sex within a marriage context. Just
because something seems right and feels appropriate in the heat of the moment
does not mean that it is right. That is lust and it minimizes us to the likes
of dogs in heat with no self-control. The idea that something should be done
because it feels good is the core of anarchy.

This is where my
doctor was completely wrong. If my doctor asked me if I was using IV drugs, and
I answered "no," should he have said, "That's best, but if you
do decide to use drugs, be sure to know your pusher?"

The same is true
for sex. He should have affirmed my decision as the most successful course,
preventing me from all sexually transmitted diseases, unwed pregnancies and
most importantly, helping me to develop true love. He should have said that he
wished more singles would choose the same so that he could cut down on his
cancer and pre-cancer operations, reduce the cases of infertility that he is
attempting to treat and to see more successful marriages in the future.

I was glad to
hear that you agree that sexual frivolity is ill advised. The abstinence-until-
marriage movement does not promote the message that sex is bad, but instead
promotes sex as the safest and most fulfilling in the marriage context. We like
sex, within marriage. (6-12-2000)

To Melissa
Merrill:

Let's not get too
bogged down in a glass-half-empty / glass-half-full debate over American
society circa 2000. People have more freedom and more opportunity than ever,
yet these freedoms and opportunities have led in some cases to unfortunate
consequences. It's not possible to isolate the sexual revolution from a variety
of other factors that have changed our world dramatically in the last 50 years
-- in fact it's hard to determine what is a cause and what is an effect as
things swirl on. And it requires a certain kind of tunnel vision to insist that
the relaxing of sexual mores and the increase in sexual freedom has been all
bad.

Among my peers
(and yes, I am twice your age) I find very few if any who regret all or even
most of their pre-marital or non-marital sexual relations (which is distinct in
this discussion from extra-marital sex, which I am not defending).

Do they wish they
had been virgins on their wedding nights? No. Did they find some of these
experiences enlightening, rewarding, fulfilling, pleasurable and
non-regrettable? Yes. Do they feel that in some ways these experiences helped
them make sensible decisions about marriage and ultimately enriched their
marriages? Yes. Yet do they, on the other hand, regret some of these
experiences and wish they'd been wiser and more restrained at times? Yes. The
response is mixed.

So I reject what
I see as your attempt to analogize non-marital sex with shallow,
self-destructive behavior such as the use of intravenous illegal drugs or
jumping off cliffs You might as well be talking about juggling chain saws from
the way you dwell so exclusively on the risks, when the fact is that nearly
everything we do or can attempt to do contains elements of risk. The last time
you drove to a movie or a restaurant or a party at night, you were taking your
life in your hands -- tens of thousands of people die in car crashes every
year!

Best to abstain
from cars ? Or best to say, OK, on balance it's worth taking the statistical
risk of death in any one excursion -- about 1 in 4 million -- in order to enjoy
some of what life has to offer outside the walls of your home, and better still
if you can better my odds by practicing "safer driving;" buckling up,
not speeding, not drinking beforehand, not proceeding if the driver is drowsy,
using a car that is in good working order and so on.

Now before you
accuse me of making a frivolous and inexact analogy myself, let me say that all
I'm trying to suggest here is -- --

Most actions people take -- from the
extremely foolhardy to the highly prudent -- -involve potential risks and
benefits. We proceed when, consciously or (usually) unconsciously we decide
that the benefits are very likely to outweigh the risks (or negative
consequences) to ourselves and others.

In order to make a risk / benefit analysis
we must take an honest and thorough assessment of *both* in as quantifiable a
way as possible.

By exaggerating the risks of non-marital
sexual activity (what does the term entail in your opinion? I ask again. And
must gay people remain eternally celibate since society refuses to allow them
to marry?) and virtually denying its capacity to offer rewards, I find that the
abstinence-only advocates skew the discussion hopelessly from the start.

Sex has the
capacity to be pleasurable and expressive in ways that mere words, conversations
and gestures do not. I believe that it's far more than a messy procreational
exigency that we must dutifully perform in order that humankind continue, and I
suspect you believe this, too. One place you and I differ is that I believe
that the emotional expressions and feelings of connection unique to sexual
relations can be appropriate for unmarried people; that it can be and mean
different things at different times with different partners, and that this
flexibility does not diminish its pleasure and beauty within marriage.

To put this
another way, I don't attach much importance to virginity at marriage because I
don't think it makes the bond more intimate and because I think a focus on
virginity until marriage places too great an emphasis on the sexual component
of marriage and may in fact hasten people into marriage who are otherwise not
ready. That you believe differently is, really, fine with me. I haven't the
slightest interest in talking you out of your views or disparaging them.

But I suspect you
would feel the same independent of health or pregnancy risks. Am I right? If
all adolescents could be given an injection that would provide 100 percent
protection against STDs and pregnancy (with the anti-pregnancy effect negatable
at some point after marriage) you would still devote yourself to encouraging
pre-marital abstinence. Again, am I right?

If I am, you'll
perhaps understand why I'm suspicious about the way you toss around health
statistics to your advantage and why I suspect you're using them the way a
drunk uses lampposts, as the expression goes -- for support rather than
illumination. Because, as you may know from some of my previous writings, I'm
of the view that yours is a moral movement thinly disguised as a public-health
campaign.

Having said all
that, though, let me add that I think you have a strong point in your advocacy
that young people today -- and not only young people -- are receiving far too
many irresponsible messages about sexuality. Sex is overemphasized, cheapened
and decontextualized in our culture and the detrimental effects are undeniable.
Our levels of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and of abortion, while dropping, are
still unacceptably high. The shrinkage of the time of innocence in childhood
due in large part to the coarseness of culture is sad and dismaying.

One can't blame
high divorce rates, school shootings or crimes of violence on a loosening of
sexual mores -- there are simply far too many other changes in society to be
precise -- but one also can't deny that sexual irresponsibility has had
negative consequences. You're eager to pin the blame for any negative
consequences on adults of my "generation," saying we "provided
directionless information to young adults," told you, "do whatever you
want," set " no standard" and "failed to provide (you) with
a compass."

I assume you're
talking about comprehensive sex education here, and I think you do have a valid
if outdated point. When we were teens in the classroom, we learned all about
the reproductive organs and their functions, we learned all about contraception
and we learned about the venereal diseases (as they then were called) but
nobody -- not at my school, certainly -- even mentioned abstinence or restraint
or delay as an option. Very little was said about the emotional power of
sexuality. This was wrong. This was incomplete. This was also generally
remedied. Today's kids generally get a message that includes such options and
indeed encourages them ("abstinence first").

When you talk
about "direction," "standard(s)" and a "compass,"
you are, it seems to me, straying into a moral area that is appropriate for
parents, church leaders and perhaps community or private school leaders,
certainly advocates such as yourself, but not for public policy.

In order to
advance this moral agenda, you get rhetorically slippery. There is, for
instance, no "safe sex" movement. Those who first advanced the term
"safe sex" were borrowing from a common cultural cliché -- we all
know of "safe"-schools programs, booklets on "safe"-driving
techniques, courses in "safe" mountaineering and so on. Of course
schools, driving and mountaineering can never be totally safe, despite the term
of art, and the more precise, accurate names would be
"safer-schools," "safer-driving" and so on. Accordingly and
in response to criticism, a decade ago or so the term "safe sex" gave
way to the term "safer sex" in the health-educators' lexicon, which
I'm sure you know. Citing the old term and trotting out your dictionary to
discredit this phantom enemy is, simply, disingenuous.

Similarly, for
you to take my expression "real and imagined dangers..." , remove the
"real and" part and then write as though I were so out of touch as to
deny that there are dangers is a pretty cheap rhetorical trick. I suppose I left
myself open for it, though, by not writing "real and grossly exaggerated
dangers." So I stand amended.

Latex condoms do
make sex safer; they do diminish the real dangers of sex. One of my concerns is
that in your zeal to underscore their imperfections you'll persuade kids who do
become sexually active that they might as well not bother with condoms at all.

As I reach my
word limit, I'll end with another concession: I've been oblivious to the spread
of HPV and my check with the Centers for Disease Control indicates your facts
-- while limited and still needing context -- are correct. You're right to
raise awareness on that subject and I trust we'll get more into HPV as our
dialogue continues. (6-16-2000)

To Eric Zorn:

While I would
like to say that I could look to the Baby Boomer generation as role models,
they are in fact the very individuals that sparked the problem our society is
now paying the price for. Therefore, for you to use the confessions, or lack
there of, of your friends as the guidepost for premarital sex, you are making a
fatal error. Furthermore, to insist that your friends would be an accurate
measure is anecdotal. Let's deal with premarital sex and major trends.

Allow me to let
you in on a secret, people tend to make memories rosier than reality. They
don't like to admit they have made mistakes. As a result, people lie about
their regrets and deny the downside of the unhealthy things they do. For
example, drug addicts praise the merits of this or that unplanned high.
Statistics tell us that 20 percent of the population have genital herpes, yet
do we see 20 percent of the population brag about having uncomfortable open
sores and lesions on their genitals? No.

Additionally,
husbands and wives do not find it attractive to hear about their spouse's past
sexual escapades. That wouldn't exactly be "romantic." Prior sexual
experiences do not enrich or enhance a marriage. If they did, we would all be
looking to marry prostitutes, but you don't see guys down on their knee with a
diamond ring on those street corners. Instead, you see exploitation. True
romance is two individuals together for the first time on their wedding night
who are able to look each other in the eye and say, "I love you so much
that I waited for you and you alone."

For people of
your generation to say they have no regrets means nothing. Lack of regret is no
measure for right and wrong.

Reality is that
many people do have regrets. This year there will be approximately 15 million
new cases of STDs in our country, and 2/3 of cases occur in people ages 15-24.
Today, one in four teenagers have a sexually transmitted disease. While many of
them used "protection," a countless number still suffer lifelong
consequences or an incurable disease that could take their lives. Have you ever
had to look at one of these young people and sit with them as salty tears
stream down their swollen faces because they made a choice they couldn't take
back? I have. This is regret, up close and personal. There are always emotional
consequences. Because they aren't still crying when they are in their forties
doesn't make the regret disappear.

And it doesn't
end there. Just recently, I saw a young woman come into the Crisis Pregnancy
Center where I volunteer. She was engaged and her pregnancy test was positive.
While she was happy, she was also scared. In high school, she had been sexually
active with her boyfriend whom she expected to marry. Soon after they started
their sexual relationship, they broke up. Not surprising since the average
teenage relationship lasts around three weeks following the initiation of
sexual intercourse! When her "love" left her, he also left two
lifelong presents she would never have asked for. First, she had a broken
heart. Second, she was infected with genital herpes.

This young woman
longed for her pregnancy to be like it should - exciting and filled with
anticipation. But she didn't know if she would be able to have a natural
childbirth. Active herpes could infect her baby and cause devastating
neurologic complications. The doctor might need to do a cesarean section. She
wished things could have been different. Do you think she has regrets?

Thousands of
other young married couples would like to start a family but are infertile due
to an STD. Others are being told they have pre-cancerous or cancerous cells.
One in five women will become pregnant using a condom. This leads to many
single young women raising children alone. The children never know what an
intact family is like. Still other young women make the tragic choice for abortion
and later suffer with Post Abortion Syndrome. People are experiencing herpes
flares, lesions, sores, irregular discharges, infertility, shaky marriages,
unhealthy relationships, emotional trauma and the list goes on. Do you think
they have regrets? Do not believe the rosy pictures people paint. They don't
want the truth- that they have an STD, abortion pain, emotional pain, etc.-
broadcast to the world.

While you have
compared these risks to those of driving a car, that is a false analogy. There
are no consequences to driving many different cars in your lifetime. Is a wife
a car? Would a husband lend her out for a little test drive? You do admit there
are unique feelings of connection and intimacy brought about by sexual
intercourse. I agree with you and doubt that you would express that same kind
of relationship with your car.

Let's explore the
"emotional expression" and "intimacy" sex entails. While
you admit that sex is powerful, you completely underestimate the power it has.
Sit in any counseling room with unmarried individuals and you will see.

When speaking,
the Abstinence Clearinghouse sometimes gives students a mental picture about
premarital sex using duct tape. We stick duct tape to someone's arm as though
they were my sexual partner to represent the bonding associated with sex. The
first time it sticks very well. Then, we break up.

As we break up,
the tape is ripped off his arm along with several arm hairs.

When I find my
next boyfriend and sexual partner, I can stick the duct tape to his arm, but it
won't stick as tightly as the first time. The tape sticks less and less with
each sexual escapade and eventually will not stick at all.

The bonding can't
be as special or powerful, and with each relationship you carry the garbage
from the past right along with it. Would you call that a healthy, loving
relationship? I most definitely would not.

The deep bonding
and "emotional expression" that only sexual intimacy creates must be
limited to marriage. One cannot be deeply bonded with many people. That would
contradict the very definition of intimacy. Do you think that prostitutes have
many deeply bonded friendships just because they have had sex with so many
people? It is this faulty bonding and "emotional expression" that
leads to increased divorce and abandoned families.

As I looked
through your last article, I searched for a place where you supported your side
as being a good, healthy choice to make. Unfortunately, I could not find one
place where you supported yourself, only attacks on the abstinence-until-marriage
position.

You have yet to
show me what protections condoms offer. If this is a focal point of your
message, you must prove it. You must be able to deal with the false sense of
security that they promote which leads to more dangerous sexual practices. You
need to figure out a way to deal with the tendency people have to discard
condom use after a relationship has endured a long time, which in today's
society translates to about four weeks! You need to be able to explain the
oxymoron of why you should even have to protect yourself from an act of
intimacy and bonding.

Although you
claimed otherwise, there is in fact a "safe sex" movement. The CDC
used the term in regards to HIV prevention. It is the message that you are
supporting. The movement was a misguided effort to suggest that sexual
avoidance was unnecessary for people with a fatal, transmissible disease. Then,
the public utilized the term to promote contraceptive use. If the CDC had
offered a responsible public health approach, they would have recommended
sexual abstinence. Since the installment of the safe sex approach, all STDs
have risen in frequency.

Because you were
unaware of HPV, the number one STD in our country, you may be oblivious to the
current consequences of sex before marriage, which are much worse than in your
day. In the year 2000, premarital sex is dangerous. I agree with you that sex
truly is a wonderful thing, but if we hold the well-being of youth as first
priority, then we must advise them in the way most beneficial to leading a
healthy life. The sexual revolution came and went and it lost. Lets move on.
Abstinence until marriage is the only healthy choice. (6-26-2000)

To Melissa
Merrill:

Did I neglect to
spell out specifically that non-marital sex can be a good choice and a healthy
activity for some couples? I thought I'd made that clear.

I believe, and
I'm certain that vast experience underscores, that from an emotional
standpoint, sexual activity is a wonderful, enriching, pleasurable, meaningful,
thrilling part of many intimate relationships that do not have the imprimatur
of clergy. We Baby Boomers are far from the only generation that appreciates
this, and while my observations are admittedly anecdotal (you seem fond of
anecdotes, too, Melissa) I'm confident that reliable cross-generational surveys
would not find substantial percentages of married people who were not virgins
on their wedding nights wracked with regret over it.

For you to
suggest, particularly from your vantage point, that their memories are
"rosier than reality" is awfully patronizing.

I agree with you,
however, that there are certain health and even emotional risks involved in
non-marital sex (and, to be sure, in marital sex in certain circumstances). And
that those who are coming of age or are considering sexual activity ought to be
made fully, frankly and honestly aware of those risks and how and to what
degree they can be reduced or eliminated.

But first let's
go right to the (duct) tape.

Clearly, the
semi-illustrative analogies we make in this area are going to be inexact, but
your effort to equate the capacity for sexual intimacy with the adhesive
material on duct tape is worse than inexact and betrays a very peculiar and
one-dimensional understanding of human sexuality. You seem to view sex as
either utterly profane (pre-marital variety) or utterly sacred (marital
variety) without understanding that it is not just one thing for all people at
all times, but a subtle, complicated, intimate yet sometimes isolating,
expressive yet sometimes inchoate, serious yet sometimes jolly, spiritual yet
sometimes coarse, spontaneous yet sometimes rote interaction both within
marriage and without that it defies easy generalities.

Again, nothing I
say here is aimed at trying to covert you or anyone else who has chosen
abstinence into a sexually active or experimental lifestyle. Unlike you, I'm
not looking to cast aspersions upon someone else's morality or views of what
they believe the role of sexuality should be in their lives.

With that in
mind: Sexual intercourse is often both an expression of intimacy and an aid to
building intimacy. It tends to make love relationships more intense even as it
often reflects the intensity of the relationship. And part of maturing as a
young adult is the personal growth one experiences in intense love affairs. One
learns what sex is and what it isn't; what sexual attraction means and what it
doesn't--how to negotiate the often rocky path of profound emotional
involvement.

My experience
tells me that such relationships have the capacity to strengthen the adhesive
quality on one's metaphorical duct tape; that "experience," by which
I mean deep and somewhat sustained romantic and sexual involvements, has value
when one is embarking upon what's hopefully a life-long and monogamous
commitment. To put another way, I would not have wanted to marry a virgin nor
would I have wanted to be a virgin on my wedding day nearly 15 years ago. I was
and am deeply in love with my wife an am utterly unthreatened and unconcerned
with the fact that she'd had serious relationships before I came along. We
share so much that is special and unique -- our three children, all the
wonderful times we've had together--that we were not the first to share certain
forms of intimacy is of the smallest possible relevance. The idea that our bond
is somehow lesser -- that her experience makes her in some way analogous to a
prostitute -- is both shallow and, frankly, insulting.

Taken to an
extreme, I suppose, my position could be used to justify promiscuity, whereas
your position could be used to justify the sorts of strict pre-marital
isolation from the opposite gender that marks societies and cultures that most
Americans would consider highly repressive. I don't think, however, that you
are arguing that boys and girls should not date or fall in love or hold hands
or hug or kiss (though, again, and this question will keep coming up until you
answer it -- what lines do you draw where and what do you mean by sexual
activity?), and I assume that you don't think I am arguing for indiscriminate
"experience." In fact, to clarify, I am arguing only that a
one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach in this area is not appropriate, and
that when you write that "the deep bonding and `emotional expression' that
only sexual intimacy creates must be limited to marriage. One cannot be deeply
bonded with many people. That would contradict the very definition of
intimacy," you are expressing a moral point of view and imperative that
works for you and are defining intimacy as you wish to define it for yourself.

When you write
that "the sexual revolution came and went and it lost," you are
expressing a personal wish, but not a fact. It's not just my generation that by
great, wide majorities rejects the idea that non-marital sex is always wrong.
Yours does too. And, for better and often worse, so does our culture. Teens are
not irresponsibly having sex because baby-boomer newspaper columnists are
saying, "hey, you know, in moderation, in the right context, with proper
precautions, it can be a positive experience." They're having sex in part
because songs, movies, TV shows, books and advertisements reinforce what their
bodies--raging with hormones and sexually primed--are telling them. I believe
that the role of responsible sex educators is to give them encouragement and
support in delaying their sexual indoctrination and all the information they
ought to have about disease and pregnancy prevention when the time comes, as it
so often does, that they reject your message.

I'll take the
liberty at this point of anticipating that you will want to cite surveys and
studies that show that pre-marital sex and pre-marital cohabitation don't lead
to higher levels of marital success as measured by divorce rates; that research
shows that wedding-night virgins are more likely to stay married than
non-virgins.

But the studies
I'm aware of show correlation but not cause -- a critical distinction. Think of
it this way: If a researcher found that young men who are fans of professional
hockey are more likely than average to be charged with domestic battery, it
would be irresponsible to conclude that watching hockey causes men to hit their
wives or that hitting their wives prompts in men an interest in watching
hockey. If this correlation were true (and I'm not saying that it is, please!)
it could simply be that a variety of social and cultural factors come into play
such that the kind of people who like hockey are more often than not also the
kind of people who settle problems at home with their fists.

About the young
woman who came to your crisis pregnancy center in tears: I have no doubt she
has regrets, as that is a regrettable situation. I would say that all teens
should be counseled on the virtues of waiting and also of using contraception,
particularly condoms. Had she and her boyfriend been using condoms?

I had occasion to
look into the HPV facts and figures for a column I decided to write on the
subject, prompted in part by this dialogue. For someone who began by insisting
that young people be given truthful information, it seems to me that you've
attempted artfully to skirt the real picture of HPV:

An estimated 19
out of 20 of those who contract HPV never have any symptoms. About 1 percent
get visible warts, which are almost always easily removed. Nine in 10 detected
cases simply vanish in two or three years.

Yes, in rare
cases it does lead to cervical cancer -- 5,000 deaths a year is a reasonable
approximation. But nearly all those deaths could be avoided with early
detection -- through regular pap smears.

Wanna save lives
and diminish heartbreak? Tell young women you counsel that whenever they become
sexually active -- be it on their wedding night as you advise or at some point
before should they not totally buy into your message -- they should begin
having regular pap smears.

And tell them
that, again, if they don't choose to wait until the honeymoon, they should use
condoms. They're not perfect, but they're better than your off-the-cuff figures
suggest--when used correctly and consistently they vastly reduce transmission
of HIV and many other STDs and are 98 percent effective in preventing
pregnancy. (7-23-2000)

To Eric Zorn:

I am delighted
you believe that "those who are coming of age or are considering sexual
activity ought to be made fully, frankly and honestly aware" of the risks
associated with premarital sex. That being said, lets speak truth.

I am astonished
by your trust in condoms, your willingness to trust a young person's life to a
thin piece of latex. There are very significant problems with the message that
condoms will protect. First of all, you have repeatedly stated that
abstinence-until-marriage is the best choice to make, but if someone chooses to
engage in premarital sex, they should use a condom.

Do you honestly
believe this is responsible advice? Let's explore the confusion this condom
message creates.

My younger
brother, Grant, is in high school, and in my completely unbiased opinion (of
course) is a handsome young man. He is actively involved in drum line, marching
band, and drama, and in the outside community he is involved in outreach,
making people laugh and using his cooking skills to surprise people in need.
So, here is this beautiful young person with a heart of gold that is going to
have to make some important sexual choices that will affect his life forever.
Understand that my little brother is one of my best friends. I love him with my
whole heart and want the best for him. We all know a special young person like
this in our lives. Who is this young person for you?

Let's imagine I
sit down with Grant to discuss his choices. I look him in the eye and say,
"Hey, Grant, I love you and want what is best for you." We discuss
consequences to sex outside of marriage - the horrible STDs that one in four of
his classmates carries, the risk of bringing a baby into this world that would
be dependant on him for life and direction outside of a stable marriage
relationship and the "safe sex" lies. More importantly, we talk about
his heart. We talk about the person Grant is and his dreams. He wants to be a
chef, doctor, lawyer, or a teacher ... a career where he can help other people.
By waiting until marriage to have sex he can achieve his goals without
obstacles that arise from non-marital sex. I see before me a beautiful person
of value, wonderfully made, that does not deserve to be used and abused. He
deserves the best and so does his future wife. Grant deserves to be respected
and he should respect others. He is not a raging hormone, but a person with
self-control. He is a person of integrity that can hold his head high as he
blesses this world with his goals, contributions, personality, respect and true
love for others. I look into Grant's eyes and I see the amazing future of our
society.

Inside, Grant is
thrilled. He is thankful someone believes in him. Someone knows that he has
self-control, that he knows respect and true love, that he doesn't use and
abuse. Grant is appreciative that someone spoke the truth.

Mostly, Grant is
thinking, "Thank you for truly loving me and believing that I can meet the
standard." He knows abstinence until marriage is the best choice,
understands right from wrong and will, most likely, choose right.

Unless, I
continue. If I were to go on and say "but if you choose differently use a
condom" what just happened? That young person just heard their mentor,
whom they admire, say "You have hormones like a dog in heat and probably
won't meet the standard and since I don't believe in you I will advise that you
just take this 'precaution.'" Is that young person still saying thank you
for believing in me? Furthermore, you, as a mentor whom they listen to, just
suggested "protection" that won't protect from HPV, which the CDC
says over 50 percent of the sexually active are infected with one or more type
of genital strains. Moreover, condoms often fail to prevent other STDs and
pregnancy. You, as a mentor, just offered advice with consequences as severe as
death. Is that young person saying "Thank you for giving me the
best?" No. I would never give this advice to my little brother. You, as a
mentor, have just placed that young person's life on the line and said he or
she is no better than the family dog. That is in no way responsible, loving or
caring.

However, if that
young person is vulnerable and doesn't know the truth, he or she may heed their
mentor's advice. These are not bad young people. I know.

I see them every
week. Many times, they are hurting people suffering the consequences from an
action that someone they trusted told them was "safe." News flash -
this little piece of latex called a condom fails 20 to 25 percent in preventing
teenage pregnancy. One in five teenage couples who use a condom will become
pregnant this year. Single parent households are skyrocketing because children
having "safe sex" are having children.

Metaphorically
speaking, condoms are like brakes on a car. When someone is going faster than
they should, the driver applies the brakes to prevent an accident. When someone
is moving faster sexually than they should before marriage, they apply the
"brakes" - a condom - to prevent an "accident." What if a
car's brakes failed 20 to 25 percent of the time? Would you still feel
"safe" driving? Would you still recommend others to drive and use
their brakes knowing that it would cause an accident at least one in five
times?

Do you think the
government would just sit back and call it "safe?" No. All vehicles
would be recalled because with a failure rate that high, safety ceases to
exist. There would be too many accidents. Yet we are telling today's youth that
condoms are safe, that they will prevent "accidents," that they can
trust them. What a lie.

Worse yet is that
the 20 to 25 percent failure rate is only for pregnancy.

Young people live
through pregnancy. Unfortunately, they may not always survive an STD. When
figuring condom failure rate for STDs as a whole, a percentage cannot be given.
However, we do know that they "protect" 10 to 30 percent of the time
from chlamydia, which can lead to infertility. We also know that they offer no
protection from herpes, a virus that one in five people carry in our society.
And, of course, the condom will offer no protection from the HPV virus that
potentially kills. Safe? A condom will protect?

Concerning HPV,
you need to be more informed before advising pap smears as a cure. First, the
assertion that "19 out of 20 of those who contract HPV never have any
symptoms" should scare you, since one in two sexually active persons carry
the disease and still spread it to others whether they have symptoms or are
symptom free - the recipient is simply unaware they just received a deadly
gift. Sexually transmitted diseases often spread because people do not know
they are infected. Although you suggest pap smears as a way to "diminish
heartbreak," pap smears are not a preventative measure. Instead they
inform patients of cancerous cells. I would recommend a pap smear and STD
testing to anyone who has not waited for their future husband or wife, but if cancerous
cells exist, they already have the disease and there is no cure. Unless, of
course, the disease is detected in its early stages, in which case a young
woman could have a radical hysterectomy.

Diminish
heartbreak? Not hardly. Furthermore, it's interesting that you referred to the
CDC concerning HPV prior to your column and had their mind-blowing statistics,
but in the column ASHA became the experts. While ASHA has medical information,
they are an advocacy group and much of their data is speculation, not fact.

Are you picturing
that special young person in your life? The "abstinence but" message
hurts physically and emotionally, and to tell them that a condom will protect
leads only to destruction. Youth that have believed a condom would protect desperately
wanted to believe in the advice their mentors gave, but they were lied to.
Sadly, they and many newborns are suffering the consequences of irresponsible,
unloving guidance.

Since you agree
with me that "there are certain health and even emotional risks involved
in non-marital sex," believe young people can make good choices. Believe
that they are able to meet a standard, have self-control, respect others and
respect themselves. Trust in that beautiful young person instead of a faulty
piece of latex. (8-11-2000)

To Melissa
Merrill:

I can't help
noticing how, yet again, you are ducking the question of what you consider
"sexual activity." Come on! You need not be graphic! Take the case of
your brother, Grant, and assume he has a serious girlfriend -- been dating for
more than a year, thinks he may well marry her someday. "OK, sis," he
says, "you've scared me to death about these horrible STDs. I'm not going
to have sexual intercourse until I'm married. But where should I draw the line
in expressing physical affection with my girlfriend or any other serious
girlfriends I might have until that time?"

Since this is my
last argument in this rhubarb, it's also my last opportunity to ask you to
address this and some other key questions.

Here's another:
What's your advice to gay people? It's not legal for them to marry, a
prohibition I'll wager the abstinence-only crowd supports, so their only
options under your system would be to remain abstinent or attempt to change
their sexual orientation through therapy.

Here's another:
Don't you worry that telling kids to wait until they get married to have sex
will encourage them to marry at a younger age than otherwise they might? Given
the astonishingly high failure rates for teen marriages, it seems almost
irresponsible to in effect urge young people who think they're in love to
hasten to the altar.

Here's another:
Do you believe that a wedding ring automatically transforms sex from an act of
licentious rutting ("dogs in heat," as you put it) to an appropriate,
loving expression of intimacy? If so, then may I fairly conclude that this
moral outlook inspires your participation in this puritan crusade and that your
focus on STDs and pregnancy is tangential? Were medical science to come up with
a pill tomorrow that would wipe out all STDs and serve as a foolproof
contraceptive, I doubt your stance would change in the least. Indeed I expect
you and yours would campaign vigorously against the introduction of such a
pill, as it would deprive you of your favorite weapon: Fear.

You have often
cited an allegiance to the truth, but I suspect that facts are not your main
concern. You prefer to adduce only studies or scraps of data friendly to your
cause -- condoms fail up to 25 percent of the time!!!!! -- and disregard the
context and range of implications as well as other studies.

On June 12 and
13th of this year, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration were among the agencies
that convened a meeting in Bethesda, Md. titled "Scientific Evidence on
Condom Effectiveness and STD Prevention." A 28-member panel reviewed 137
research papers and will soon (probably in September, 2000) release a report.
That report is likely to show that condoms are dramatically effective in preventing
pregnancy and HIV, and are likely very effective in preventing the spread of
other "discharge" STDs such as gonorrhea. They are less effective,
sometimes to an unknown degree, in preventing "ulcerative" STDs, such
as syphilis. The reason, which I never heard spelled out at the abstinence
rally I attended, is that condoms often don't cover the infected areas that can
spread STDs on contact.

Condoms don't
make sex risk-free. That's a fair point. But are you going to be willing to
relay objectively in your presentations what the data actually show and what
the levels of risk are? Are you going to be willing to look at and present the
overall numbers, not just the ones that might frighten children into behaving
the way you want them to?

What percentage
of condoms break or leak? The average batch of condoms tests better than 99.7
percent defect free, and the actual breakage rate is variously reported as
between 0.4 percent and 2 percent. So why would a study show a 25 percent
failure rate, at least 12 times higher than the product's physical failure
rate? Simple. User failure. The users put them on too late or incorrectly, took
them off too early and didn't always use them, and so on. The price of
ignorance.

Let me use your
automobile brake analogy for a moment (though it is, of course, typically
hysterical ... brake failure almost always causes serious injury or death while
condom failure does not: You have a situation here in which, for every 13 car
crashes attributed to brake failure, 12 of them are actually caused by drivers
mistakenly hitting the gas pedal instead of the brake -- misusing the product.
Your conclusion is that brakes are too risky to rely on and that we ought not
teach drivers how to use brakes correctly. The message drivers get from you is
"Brake pedals don't work, don't bother applying them."

Unmarried people
fall in love and become deeply attracted to each other.

Their physical
desire is not necessarily bestial, unnatural or shameful -- it can be very
meaningful, profound and appropriate. But either way, couples often behave
unwisely in order to satisfy that desire. Risky, dramatic, passionate gestures
are often part of that immense experience we call romance. This has been true
since ancient times and will likely always be true. No one generation started
it or has a monopoly on it, and the assertion that it is always bad until the
union is sanctioned by law is, quite simply, an opinion.

Responsibility
requires that educators do their best to find and present the most accurate and
thorough data on contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases and present
them in an age-appropriate manner to students.

Responsibility
requires that abstinence or limitations on activity be presented to students as
a cool, creditable, often wise alternative -- the safest and healthiest choice
they can make -- but that those who choose not to be abstinent be presented
with the resources and facts to proceed as wisely and healthfully down that
road as possible.

Kids know or will
figure out that your 25 percent condom failure figure is a crock -- a
reefer-madness style claim designed to scare them into submission.

They'll catch on
that all your sepulchral exaggerations about HPV aren't meant to inform or even
guide, but to frighten.

They'll sniff you
out for what I believe you are: a quasi-religious moral crusader who's slipped
in the side door of the public schools. And most of them will tune you out
sooner or later (another question -- what is the "failure rate" for
abstinence pledges?).

Will that help or
hurt? Is it better to give kids a full range of information including honest
risk/benefit analyses of their options? Or is it better to tell them "Just
say no" 100 different ways and cross our fingers that they cross their
legs? Which approach will leave us better off?

Every prestigious
non-ideological public-health organization I'm aware of advocates for
comprehensive sexuality education and against abstinence-only-until-marriage
education. Why? Because studies show what logic suggests Comprehensive sex ed.
works better. It does a better job in realizing goals that you and I share.

To summarize my
position, I hold -- along with, apparently, the vast majority of Americans who
behave accordingly -- -that sex before or outside the context of marriage is
not necessarily wrong or regrettable. It can have much to recommend it, in
fact.

I believe that
students should be instructed about sexuality in age-appropriate ways that
explore its power and consequences, and that the benefits of delaying induction
and of abstinence should be highlighted.

Those who choose
abstinence should feel supported by the curriculum. Students should be given
the best, most accurate information about contraceptives and STDs, but they and
their parents should be allowed and encouraged to make their own decisions on
such behavior based on their own values.

I certainly don't
want you, Melissa, or anyone else using the imprimatur of public education or
other color of authority to tell my sons or my daughter what decisions to make
in this most personal area any more than you'll want me telling your children
what to do when you have them and they reach adolescence. Information, yes.
Preaching, no.

One last
question: I came to this discussion to explore and seek areas of compromise --
to see how your views and interpretations might be integrated into other views
and presented in a way that's productive and fair. I don't, however, sense any
willingness to compromise from you. Am I wrong? Is there any common ground
here, or are we destined to holler across a chasm?

Thanks for your
contributions. I hope those who read this sometimes testy exchange come away
with a sharper understanding of both points of view. And please, don't forget
as you take the last word to answer my questions. Use all the space you want!
(8-25-2000)

To Eric Zorn:

As we wrap up our
debate, I am thankful you believe that is the responsibility of educators to
find and present the most accurate and thorough data to youth in an age
appropriate manner. I agree. That is why I give the information that I do.

Since the question
has been raised to define "sexual activity," I question your ability
to provide accurate and thorough data because it is only having a clear
understanding of sexual activity that one can give accurate STD information. To
let you know, any genital contact can put individuals at risk for the spread of
some STDs. Therefore, there can be no contact with the genital area to remain
risk free. This is true for all people.

Understanding
that there is no protection from these risks, you further push the question by
asking about my support for a "miracle pill" (if there ever were one)
that would wipe out all STDs and pregnancy. First of all, it is extremely
doubtful there will ever be one. We still cannot cure the common cold. We
thought we had gonorrhea beat but now all kinds of resistant strains are
arising. There is no protection against HPV. Every time the technology
improves, the microbes are a step ahead. Second, this "miracle pill"
would undoubtedly fail 100 percent of the time in protecting from emotional pain.
Our hearts are the core of who we are, and when that is damaged, we are
damaged. Since I work with young people all of the time, I know they are more
than just a physical being. I know they are special people with dreams that
momentary hormones can crush. We need to protect the heart and your
"miracle pill" would fail to do that. So instead of being a thriving
success it would be a perfect failure.

Furthermore, your
question underlying these thoughts is filthy and destructive. The question
should not be, "How far can I safely go to satisfy my momentary
urges?" That question smacks of selfishness. The better question to ask
is, "How can I keep myself free from emotional and physical pain and keep
myself pure for my future spouse?" This question is not one of
selfishness, but one of maturity and love. Since we have established that there
is no 'safe sex' outside of marriage, the mature single person loves the future
spouse by sparing them the risk of incurable STD or emotional baggage that will
undermine marriage. This question looks at the big picture. This question
causes individuals to make healthy choices and truly love the person they are
dating.

While you claim
that in encouraging abstinence-until-marriage I am likewise encouraging teens
to rush to the alter, it is quite the opposite. What I am encouraging is the
practice of self-control with their sexuality. The self-control will follow
suit in all other areas of their lives, including marriage. I am encouraging
integrity and character. That integrity and character will reflect in all their
decisions and avoid hasty decisions. Self-control doesn't come by saying 'I
do.' It is something that must have been practiced and refined over a period of
years.

Our practices
prior to marriage will carry into our marriages. Do you honestly believe that
someone's character will change by walking down the aisle? Individuals from the
"safe sex, free love" revolution have proven otherwise. They had free
sex before they got married and now my generation, as their children, is
carrying the pain from parents who don't trust each other, infidelity and
skyrocketing divorce rates. I have heard of the popular book from the 70s,
"Open Marriage." I don't hear about any now. Guess the dream of an
idea didn't play out so well in reality. Young people want something better
than what the previous generation has shown us, and that begins by making
healthy choices before saying "I do."

And do you really
believe that people need sex so bad that they will need to rush to the altar? What
kind of relationship is focussed on momentary hormones? If this is the
mentality, then better keep the Sexual and Love Addicts Anonymous telephone
number handy in the Rolodex. If the unrestrained practice of sex is so good,
why did news stories several months ago tout new heights of sexual dysfunction
in our society?

You say that
unmarried people fall in love. I am quite aware of this, and despite your
criticism, I know what healthy romance is. In fact, I'm glad that you asked
about the high school person saying he/she had dated for more than a year. My
boyfriend and I began dating at the age of 16 during our junior year of high
school. Today we are 21 and engaged to get married next year. You are correct
to say that there is physical attraction, but it is faulty thinking to believe
that physical attraction and love equal sex. We are in love, not lust. We want
the best for each other. We have self-control, trust, integrity and character
that will create a lasting marriage. And, on our wedding day we will give each
other our lives knowing that neither of us has regrets or a selfish past, or a
third or fourth person that is going to jump out of our baggage and into our
marriage. We will know that both of us have loved each other for who were are,
not what we do. True love waits for marriage; lust and selfishness do not. Be
careful not to get the two confused.

Now before the
accusation is once again made that I think sex is a "licentious act"
as though it were horrible, take time to look at the abstinence-until-marriage
message. Sex is not a bad thing. In fact, sex is seen as a wonderful act that
uniquely bonds two individuals together. But because there are so many risks to
sex outside of marriage, marriage is the only safe context for sex. Because of
this fact, information must be given to youth so that they understand why this
is true. And while you claim that this is simply my opinion, society agrees
with this message. A survey of almost 4,980 people by Wirthlin Worldwide
discovered that 71 percent of the national respondents believe couples should
wait for sex until marriage. Furthermore, a study commissioned by the National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found that 95 percent of both adults and
teens felt it was important that high school students be given a strong
abstinence message from society. And, even if one would go so far as to claim
that these statistics are wrong because some unmarried people are involved with
sexual activity, a study from Emory University shows otherwise. In a survey of
1,000 sexually active teen girls, 84 percent said they would like to learn how
to say no. If individuals practice self-control prior to marriage, the wedding
ring makes sex safe, regret-free and right.

Despite this
information, you have claimed that the best education is comprehensive sex
education. However you cited no studies to support this claim. There have been
studies to explore the nature of teen sexual health, which found the exact
opposite to be true. For example, Westmont College published "The Sexual
Abstinence Message Causes Positive Changes in Adolescent Behavior: A
Circumstantial Review of Relevant Statistics" in 1998, showing with
statistical data that the numbers of teens involved in sexual activity and
having abortions was on the rise until the onset of abstinence education
programs. Likewise, a 1999 report by the Consortium of State Physicians
Resource Councils entitled "The Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth
and Abortion Rates in the 1990's: What Factors Are Responsible" also took
an objective look at the issue and reported that the correlation between condom
use and unintended pregnancies is the exact opposite of the claims made by the
public health community. The study reported that increased condom usage was
associated with an increase in out-of-wedlock births, citing a 29 percent
increase in out-of-wedlock births in spite of a 33 percent increase in condom
usage at last intercourse.

Throughout this
debate, I have given only conclusive facts. Facts that can be verified.
Particularly in the case of condoms, since you seem to be such an advocate of
their "safety," I have shown time and time again that they fail. They
fail one in four times in teen pregnancy and they cannot stop the spread of
many STDs, some of which cause infertility, cancer, and even death. Today, one
in five American's has an incurable STD. This number has been on the rise since
the 1980's when people first began pushing condom use, yet the problem has
continually gotten worse. To complicate matters more, latex allergies are on
the rise.

To counter this
truthful message, the charge has been made that abstinence-until marriage uses
fear to produce a message. This charge is like the earlier claim the
abstinence-until-marriage advocates think sex is bad. It is a failed attempt
made by risk-reduction advocates to try to weaken the truthful message that
abstinence-until-marriage advocates deliver. You have just come to realize
that, in reality, the truthful consequences to all premarital sex is scary and
all the truth that has scared you is not going to change until we once again
make "sex is only for marriage" the standard. Social science shows
that fear is a temporary impediment. The real mind changer is having hope for
the future.

You have never
cited any data that would prove pre-marital sex to be a healthy choice. Never
have you shown that even "protected sex" will free people from
long-term damage. Instead, you have spent all your time making weak attacks on
my position rather than strongly supporting your own. And while you have
attempted to weaken my position, abstinence-until-marriage has always remained
strong. Risk reduction advocates have nothing to stand on other than personal
desire which they say does not need to be managed, just protected

As an adult that
youth and your own children will look to for advice, you have an ethical
responsibility to give them the best message that will cause them no harm.
Therefore, you need to give them the true facts, love them and believe in them.
The risks to premarital sex, "protected" or not, and the benefits of
waiting for marriage need to be presented in a caring way, and from there,
these individuals can make their own choices, but at least they will know the
serious risks they are taking.

It is our job as
mentors to teach them the right choices. The next generation should benefit
from what the previous generation has learned from their mistakes. It is our
job to tell them the whole truth and give the best advice. If you were telling
a teen to not smoke, yet you found out they were going to smoke anyway, you
wouldn't say, "Ok, just use a filter." You do not lower the standard,
because there are still risks. If they were to come back and say, "I used
a filter and I still have cancer" it would be your fault. The same holds
true for premarital sexual activity. If you lower the standard, you may very
well have a crying young adult - pregnant, infertile, with cancer or emotional
heartbreak - look at you and say "you told me this was ok."
Compromise is not an option. If you don't aim at the bull's eye you won't even
hit the target. Abstinence-until marriage never hurts, never kills, it only
loves.

My ultimate hope
is that you value these young people's hearts more the hope that they will
negotiate the minefield of safe sex. My hope is that you value their physical
and emotional health and long term future more than their passing desires, the
heat of the moment. I hope you take a stand that loves them.

There is a saying
that goes "we reap what we sow." If we sow a message of "risk
reduction" we are sowing a message that will reap destruction and
heartbreak. And, we will indirectly continue to worsen the very problem we are
trying to solve. However, if we sow a message of abstinence-until-marriage, we
will reap a healthier society. There will be no further spread of STDs,
unplanned pregnancy or emotional heartbreak. There will be intact families,
kids with fathers at home, less domestic violence and child abuse. We will see
a society filled with young adults of integrity, self-control, enduring
relationships and eternal happiness. Abstinence-until-marriage is the only
answer to society's problem. Spread the word. (10-11-00)

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.